Published on September 3rd, 2010 | by Anthony D Poerio1
‘Tea Party’ Candidate for Senate, Christine O’Donnell, Talks Masturbation.
If you haven’t too busy banging yourself recently, you might’ve heard that Delware ‘Tea Party’ candidate for Senate, Christine O’Donnell, has some inordinately odd opinions on doing the dirty: even to yourself!
Huffinton Post: The Delaware Republican, who is challenging Rep. Mike Castle in the state’s Senate primary and has earned the financial backing of a portion of the Tea Party movement, made an appearance in the MTV series “Sex In The 90s.” Entitled “The Safest Sex Of All,” the episode was ostensibly geared towards understanding the importance of abstinence. But O’Donnell’s guidance went a bit further. Masturbation, she argued, is not a moral substitute for sex. “The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. So you can’t masturbate without lust.”
But, as most of you are wondering, wouldn’t a rigorous regime of intense masturbation sate our desires and and aid in, say, disease prevention?
“The reason that you don’t tell [people] that masturbation is the answer to AIDS and all these other problems that come with sex outside of marriage is because again it is not addressing the issue,” she extrapolated. “You’re just gonna create somebody who is, I was gonna say, toying with his sexuality. Pardon the pun.”
That O’Donnell is now being taken ‘seriously’ in this race attests to the appeal of traditionally conservative values to modern society. What, the anxious masturbator careful critic would certainly ask, is it about these seemingly outdated viewpoints that has become so appealing?
The answer, could perhaps lie in the ostensibly awkward, if not ironic, position that so many (if mostly conservative) politicians who claim to be intent on preserving our supposedly God-given freedoms don’t seem to think ‘he’s’ given us any freedoms to defend to begin with, at least that we can act on without damning ourselves to eternal torment, &c. &c.
Could it be since the arrival of the internet (self) control and freedom have become somehow intertwined? Has the mere possibility of absolute freedom as an abstraction become a phantom stand the way scripted TV is marketed as ‘reality’ TV?
So on one hand, we’re free to procure in the illicit, even in the knowledge that someone like Christine O’Donnell may disapprove, which in the end hardly keeps most of us venturing into the deep illicit permeating the internet.